Valhalla Otintin-kan - Vol. 3 Ch. 22 - The Most Superior Seeds

[readingsit]

Of course, that discredits ALL scholarly works in the world!

Mhm and you're truly a humanist for defending slurs, kudos!

not all of them, just the ones from that field. like the one your trying to defend

mhm projection is a hell of a drug. try not to overdose my man

 

[Sahkuh]

also 'discriminating language against minorities' he didnt say the n-word my man. he used 'transformers' as an insult


are you really bringing up feelings when this whole debate is around a guy who said mean words you dont like? pot meet kettle.

Sure.

So do you have proof that this is the case as well for this author?

 

[readingsit]

So do you have proof that this is the case as well for this author?

since you dont seems to understand how reasonable arguments work ill lay it out for ya
you posted 'Posting a peer reviewed and published writing is surely just crying.' to use 'peer reviewed and published' as a means of defending the writing. this is called an 'appeal to authority' argument since your not trying to defend whats in the book your instead saying 'smart people like this so obviously you should too'
so the proper counter-argument is to point out fallibility of the authority in question, which i did by point out how they were easily fooled by 7 papers that were made purely to feed the ego of would-be peer reviewers.

i dont need to prove that the writing itself is another ego feed since i have already proven i have no reason to trust 'peer reviewed and published' in this field. it is now believable the authority in question could just be stroking their egos. so if your going to defend the writing then your going to need to use the merit of what it says instead of appealing to that authority again
but good luck with that, because from what ive heard about whats writen inside is just a massive racist rant over living in a white-majority country and having to deal with random passerby who dont look like the author

 

[Sahkuh]

since you dont seems to understand how reasonable arguments work ill lay it out for ya
you posted 'Posting a peer reviewed and published writing is surely just crying.' to use 'peer reviewed and published' as a means of defending the writing. this is called an 'appeal to authority' argument since your not trying to defend whats in the book your instead saying 'smart people like this so obviously you should too'
so the proper counter-argument is to point out fallibility of the authority in question, which i did by point out how they were easily fooled by 7 papers that were made purely to feed the ego of would-be peer reviewers.

i dont need to prove that the writing itself is another ego feed since i have already proven i have no reason to trust 'peer reviewed and published' in this field. it is now believable the authority in question could just be stroking their egos. so if your going to defend the writing then your going to need to use the merit of what it says instead of appealing to an that authority again
but good luck with that, because from what ive heard about whats writen inside is just a massive racist rant over living in a white-majority country and having to deal with random passerby who dont look like the author

I pointed out, originally, that quoting a paper doesn't constitute as crying. But I didn't realize all authorities approving papers were the same group of people. Thank you for pointing that out. Of course, there have never been hoaxes in other fields, otherwise we would have to discredit them wholesale as well. Oh and because you don't trust these so called authorities and that is "believable" that they're just stroking their egos are such solid arguments. Your debating skills are top notch. Very reasonable.

 

[readingsit]

Thank you for pointing that out.

cant say i didnt try ill just take the following compliment and call it a day

Your debating skills are top notch. Very reasonable.

thank you

 

[MothproofAcorn]

thats not what he said. hes pointing out that white people can be victims of racism as well such as that chapter crying about 'white fragility' if i posted a rant on 'black fragility' it would rightfully be flagged but targeting white's are acceptable?
but i understand thats a hard sell to a bigot like you

are you really bringing up feelings when this whole debate is around a guy who said mean words you dont like? pot meet kettle.

your framing is absurdist. outside of fringe nutters no one likes there is no 'whole section' of ANY western country considering eradication of ANY group

except australia maybe ive been hearing alot about their concentration camps recently...oh yeah and then theres canada with their 'healthcare' system. but i mean besides those two

Michael Knowles is a mainstream conservative figure who called for the “eradication of transgenderism“ at cpac the largest mainstream conservative convention in America. If you think that’s just “fringe nutters” you are deluding yourself.

 

[readingsit]

Michael Knowles is a mainstream conservative figure who called for the “eradication of transgenderism“ at cpac the largest mainstream conservative convention in America. If you think that’s just “fringe nutters” you are deluding yourself.

notice the 'ism' at the end. talking about eradicating an ideology or mental illness is not the same thing as ending a people.
one is about relentless debate or calling for new tactics in therapy and/or medicine
the other is mass-slaughter. gathering people up and ending their lives

if you interpret it as ideology he's saying 'we will debate them anywhere and everywhere and we will win and win until everyone knows we're right'
if you interpret it as mental illness then hes saying 'we will do everything in our power to change the current medical view on transgender treatment to get them the help they need, to end the medical malpractice that is its current treatment to those suffering from gender dysphoria'

feel free to disagree with him and dislike what hes saying but using 'the largest mainstream conservative convention in America' to call for violence is literally illegal. if he did what your saying he did then he would be in jail

 

[Richman]

notice the 'ism' at the end. talking about eradicating an ideology or mental illness is not the same thing as ending a people.
one is about relentless debate or calling for new tactics in therapy and/or medicine
the other is mass-slaughter. gathering people up and ending their lives

if you interpret it as ideology he's saying 'we will debate them anywhere and everywhere and we will win and win until everyone knows we're right'
if you interpret it as mental illness then hes saying 'we will do everything in our power to change the current medical view on transgender treatment to get them the help they need, to end the medical malpractice that is its current treatment to those suffering from gender dysphoria'

feel free to disagree with him and dislike what hes saying but using 'the largest mainstream conservative convention in America' to call for violence is literally illegal. if he did what your saying he did then he would be in jail

Being transgender is not a mental issue nor is it an ideology, political or not.
Those people choose their words carefully but they know what they are really saying, it's no wonder laws get passed that prevent transgender people from transitioning or even participating in society.

 

[xyzzy]

notice the 'ism' at the end. talking about eradicating an ideology or mental illness is not the same thing as ending a people.

I’m going to list the obvious counterpoint here - Judaism.

 

[readingsit]

Being transgender is not a mental issue nor is it an ideology, political or not.

your right, that why he didnt say transgender. he said transgenderism
'but they know what they are really saying' i understand you have the unique ability to read minds but im afraid society at large doesnt recognize such ability so we need to use the words they say and not the ones they may think

I’m going to list the obvious counterpoint here - Judaism.

Judaism is neither an ideology nor mental illness. its a religion. and even when i think of the bad guys your alluding to they dont say anything along the lines of 'we need to eradicate Judaism' they say 'we need to eradicate the jews' becuase they view them as a race
and calling for the eradication of a race is calling for mass-slaughter. and as far as im aware there are no mainstream groups in the modern west calling for eradication of any race

 

[Zephyrus]

Let me very clear here. Any further mentions of transgender being a mental illness, ideology, fetish, etc., etc., will be met with a temp ban of an indeterminate period of time. The repeated moderator warnings have apparently not made our stance clear enough.

There are plenty of other corners of the internet where you can bully or harass transgender people or their supporters. MD isn't one of them.

 

[readingsit]

Let me very clear here. Any further mentions of transgender being a mental illness, ideology, fetish, etc., etc., will be met with a temp ban of an indeterminate period of time. The repeated moderator warnings have apparently not made our stance clear enough.

There are plenty of other corners of the internet where you can bully or harass transgender people or their supporters. MD isn't one of them.

literally didnt even say that and got the warning anyway but alright

 

[Kaarme]

What an interesting thread. Even mods were attracted to it like flies to an animal corpse. Seems like Elon Musk's $40 billion finest were behind the whole incident, as usual, if I understood this thread correctly.

Strange things happen when a forum has no off-topic rules.

 

[MothproofAcorn]

notice the 'ism' at the end. talking about eradicating an ideology or mental illness is not the same thing as ending a people.
one is about relentless debate or calling for new tactics in therapy and/or medicine
the other is mass-slaughter. gathering people up and ending their lives

if you interpret it as ideology he's saying 'we will debate them anywhere and everywhere and we will win and win until everyone knows we're right'
if you interpret it as mental illness then hes saying 'we will do everything in our power to change the current medical view on transgender treatment to get them the help they need, to end the medical malpractice that is its current treatment to those suffering from gender dysphoria'

feel free to disagree with him and dislike what hes saying but using 'the largest mainstream conservative convention in America' to call for violence is literally illegal. if he did what your saying he did then he would be in jail

Except it is, especially when the person calling for that knows very well that doing so will directly result in more violence directed at the group in question. If I called for the eradication of Christianity (at all tbh but more specifically) in a time where Christians are already being assaulted left and right, their rights to religious freedom aren’t being respected and they’re being mass targeted for harassment. Nobody would buy it if afterwards I said “oh well I just mean people shouldn’t be Christians.” No, in that situation I and everyone else would know exactly what I’m doing. Especially given that I don’t come out and condemn violence against christians, I just go “well can you blame them I mean people are mad at christians right now.” No it‘d be incredibly obvious to anyone with a brain what I’m doing and the only people that’d argue that I’m not doing that are people who want the issue not to be taken seriously until it’s too late and I’m already carting off Christians to my death camps.

Just to respond to a few of your points separate from my analogy.

we will do everything in our power to change the current medical view on transgender treatment to get them the help they need

only and idiot would think that that’s how he thinks given that he doesn’t seem to care at all when trans people are brutally beaten and murdered as a direct result of things he says, people like him and Matt Walsh are literally even getting specifically referenced by people that are committing crimes against trans people and they don’t come out and condemn the violence

to call for violence is literally illegal. if he did what your saying he did then he would be in jail

clearly you don’t know what a dog whistle is

 

[readingsit]

your leaving out some pretty important parts of the speech, here is the relevant portion in full:

"...for the good of society, and especially for the good of the poor people who have fallen prey to this confusion [censored by mods]ism must be eradicated from public life entirely"

the speech is calling for helping [censored by mods]s and your saying its calling for their eradication? (bolding added for clarity)

'Christians are already being assaulted left and right'

you mean the war on Christmas that happens every year? or are you referring to the January 2018 to September 2022 tripling of attacks on christian churches?

"their rights to religious freedom aren’t being respected and they’re being mass targeted for harassment."

the kentucky clerk, the Masterpiece Cakeshop suits, or the countless suits against churches; religious universities; and religious businesses for not catering to homosexual events? nonono you must be referring to obama's targetting of the little sisters of the poor and Hobby Lobby over obamacare forcing them to provide birth control.

“oh well I just mean people shouldn’t be Christians.”

so richard dawkins whole career or do you mean the famous atheist portions of youtube?

“well can you blame them I mean people are mad at christians right now.”

such as when the news covered some of the church burnings in canada as "Discovery of Mass Grave of Indigenous Children Prompts Grief and Questions" instead of somthing along the lines of "church burned by anti-christian extremists"?

strange even after all that has already played out for chistians and no one seems to be pushing that christians are getting eradicated, including me. so unless your telling me i should be concerned about christians being carted off to death camps your argument really doesnt hold water even if i ignore the parts you left out of the original speech

"clearly you don’t know what a dog whistle is"

i know what a dog whistle is. its a whistle that only dogs can hear, now i ask you: what does it say about you that i cant hear it but you can?

 

[Belfegrad]

Being transgender is not a mental issue nor is it an ideology, political or not.
Those people choose their words carefully but they know what they are really saying, it's no wonder laws get passed that prevent transgender people from transitioning or even participating in society....

Being transgender IS a mental issue. Prove me wrong

 

[MilkDrinker]

Sad to see Resetera-tier moderation here. I missed what the TL might have said, but I'm sure this reaction of banning fukken everyone is way out of proportion.

 

[MothproofAcorn]

your leaving out some pretty important parts of the speech, here is the relevant portion in full:

the speech is calling for helping [censored by mods]s and your saying its calling for their eradication? (bolding added for clarity)


you mean the war on Christmas that happens every year? or are you referring to the January 2018 to September 2022 tripling of attacks on christian churches?


the kentucky clerk, the Masterpiece Cakeshop suits, or the countless suits against churches; religious universities; and religious businesses for not catering to homosexual events? nonono you must be referring to obama's targetting of the little sisters of the poor and Hobby Lobby over obamacare forcing them to provide birth control.


so richard dawkins whole career or do you mean the famous atheist portions of youtube?


such as when the news covered some of the church burnings in canada as "Discovery of Mass Grave of Indigenous Children Prompts Grief and Questions" instead of somthing along the lines of "church burned by anti-christian extremists"?

strange even after all that has already played out for chistians and no one seems to be pushing that christians are getting eradicated, including me. so unless your telling me i should be concerned about christians being carted off to death camps your argument really doesnt hold water even if i ignore the parts you left out of the original speech


i know what a dog whistle is. its a whistle that only dogs can hear, now i ask you: what does it say about you that i cant hear it but you can?

Now I know you’re just arguing in bad faith, well you were the whole time but it’s shown very clearly here. Comparing targetted harassment against trans people where you’ve got groups like kiwi farms that have a dedicated list and counter on their home page of trans people that they’ve driven to committing suicide. To things like the cake shop or the apple farm guy where the “discrimination“ against christians is literally just not letting them discriminate, it’s so ridiculous it’s absurd.

The “war on Christmas“. What are you a child? “waaaahhhh people say happy holidays rather than merry christmas now”. Grow up.

with the Richard Dawkins statement you’ve totally ignored the fact that he’s a single person (or if you’re talking about the whole atheist YouTube community it’s like 40 to 50 people max) in a group that is minuscule compared to Christianity which holds more power than any other collection of people IN THE WORLD. It’d be one thing if christians were a minority but they’re not only the majority but also hold basically all of the political power in this country. You could make that case for the christians in ISIS’ territory back in like 2014 or whatever but here in america that makes no sense.

once again with the church burnings you have the VAST majority calling for condemnation because We live in a predominantly Christian nation. Idk why that’s even relevant anyways because we’re talking about America not Canada but even so you’re point still falls flat. Edit: btw the indian tribes themselves came out with severe condemnation of the arson so what is even your point here? It’s literally the opposite of what’s happening right now with conservatives where they won’t come out and condemn the violence at all.

for your first point, again if you think even a single one of these pricks cares about helping trans people when they’re specifically legislating in a way that has already shown to cause more violence against trans people you’re either an idiot or you agree with said violence.

 

[Wolvenworks]

@Tomoshibi actual proper TLs for older chs when lol. You did kinda promise that back then.

 

[readingsit]

kiwi farms that have a dedicated list and counter on their home page of trans people that they’ve driven to committing suicide

i dont know who kiwi farms are but if they do indeed do what you say they do then i condemn them in the strongest possible way. but how is this not comparable to burning down churches? some of those churches had people inside

people say happy holidays rather than merry christmas

thats not the 'war on Christmas' thats just cringe.
the war on Christmas is when
carolers go from hourse to house to sing: sued
a citizens is putting up a religious display in front of his property: sued
a town mayor and council want to join the town in celebrations so they put up a display: sued
despite it being there for decades its Christmas and somone spotted a soldiers grave being marked with a cross: sued
in otherwords: targeted harassment. but of course you dont care about that kind of targeted harassment since Christians are the majority so 'waaaahhhh' as youd say

Richard Dawkins statement you’ve totally ignored the fact that he’s a single person

the reason i brought up Richard Dawkins is because his entire career is 'oh well I just mean people shouldn’t be Christians.' and your original argument is is someone says that after Christians are targeted with violence and harassment they they are actually calling for their death. i do not think Richard Dawkins is calling for Christians to be killed i just think hes a prick
it doesnt matter that you disagree with how i view on the situation around Christians since i also disagree with your view on the situation around [censored by mods]s. ultimately the point of my argument is 'if i view the treatment of Christians the same way your viewing the treatment of [censored by mods]s shouldnt i see Richard Dawkins as calling for genocide?'

once again with the church burnings you have the VAST majority calling for condemnation

if you show forum posts or video of some vile gnat of a human demanding anyone [censored by mods] or not commit suicide then the VAST majority will call for condemnation. my point isnt that people wont condemn them my point is the lack of coverage, everytime a gay bar is burned the perpetrator becomes a famous terrorist covered head to toe by news for days or weeks on end. meanwhile christian churches are burned and the news outlets people like you would read dont cover it at all or deflect the news to bring focus away from the perpetrators.
perhaps you can recognize the problem if i word it like this:

after a gay bar is burned down killing 10 customers or staff news outlets by and large do not report on the incident or describe the incident as "suspicions raised on landowner as old christian cemetery found" and the only outlets that report it as "extremist burns down gay bar" are pink news and jezebel but even they dont give followups when new information comes out and instead make articles over the lack of coverage on the incident by other outlets.

you dont see any problems with that?

for your first point, again if you think even a single one of these pricks cares about helping trans people

thats a fair opinion to have, but thinking they dont want to help is a far cry from trying to commit genocide.

legislating in a way that has already shown to cause more violence against trans people you’re either an idiot or you agree with said violence

the 'war on drugs' is commonly seen as a failure that did not effect amounts of drug usage. if you share that view you can call those who supported the policy inept or misguided but saying they want to genocide drug users is a stretch to say the least.
if the statistics that show this legislation to cause more violence are real then people might take issue with how these stats were found, the perceived bias of the statisticians, or think its made up. you can reply to such assertions as them being stupid, stubborn, inept, etc. but once you try to claim that they are supporting genocide and violence you are being absurdist